Shouldn't count if breaking the laws of the real universe is normal. For example, if your wizard character breaks the laws of the real universe with a levittion spell in the Harry Potter 'verse, it doesn't count because most wizard characters can do that.

In section 3a

* one point if it's not natural in this world (glowing eyes, etc) but normal in the character's world

one point if it's a natural human trait but unusual in that setting (ie, a blonde in a race of brunettes)

two points if it's both not a normal human trait and unusual for the setting

Add:

zero points if it's not natural in this world (glowing eyes, etc) but normal in the character's world and the corresponding normal Real Life trait would be more unusual in the setting than the "unnatural one" - for example your character has purple hair because 95% of the "moon elves" in the setting have purple hair, and he's a moon elf.

Is your character a werewolf or vampire?

Maybe also add deity, dragon, elf, or any other "awesome" race (long lived, etc.) - not sure how to say this...

If I didn't do that, my character would have even less points than he already does. I'm pretty sure you're meant to score for each question which drives the character towards more Sueishness.

Orphan, fair enough. Just learned (s)he is an orphan and his/her real parents were killed by the Big Bad and said orphan has sworn revenge, getting rather more Sueish. Harry Potter's good for 6 points just there...

I put the quasi-Parody Stu I mentioned in the previous thread through this - note that I don't think he actually is a Stu (even a parody one), but he has elements of it. Answering yes to all questions that could possibly be yes:

1. Is your character similar to you in several ways, such as race, gender, approximate age, etc? Answer yes only if the character is similar in at least two ways.

Yes (As far as these particular questions go - he's more or less a parody of the author self-insert)

75. Do important people make time for your character when they ought to have better things to do?

Yes

76. Does your character know things that he or she has no explicable way of finding out?

No

77. Does your character have modern views that are unusually progressive for that setting? (Skip this entire question if the story is specifically about the conflict between his or her views and the traditional views.)

No

a. Does he or she convince other people of his or her views?

b. Does he or she change the entire culture to his or her views?

78. Is your character allowed to do something that his or her age, gender, race, or class is not usually allowed to do (practicing in secret doesn't count)?

Yes

a. Something that no one is allowed to do?

79. Does your character not work or have any other source of income, and yet always has plenty of money?

No

a. If your character does have a job, is he or she never seen actually doing it?

b. If your character is in school, is he or she never seen studying, but always gets good grades?

Yes (while the characters were in college at first, this was barely ever depicted for any of them)

80. If your character is royalty or any other kind of leader, does he or she never have any actual responsibilities?

No

81. Does your character have informed flaws (flaws that never actually negatively affect him or her)?

No

a. Are his or her only personality flaws stubbornness, impulsiveness, or a bad temper?

No

b. Are these always justified (he or she only impulsively does the right thing)?

82. Does your character consider a cool trait to be a curse, even though it doesn't have any actual negative effects?

No

a. Does he or she consider his or her popularity to be a curse?

b. How about his or her exceptional talents?

83. If your character is injured, is he or she fine in the next scene?

Yes (true for all characters in most cases)

84. If your character has a vice like a drug addiction, does he or she never suffer any consequences from it?

No

85. Does your character die heroically?

No

a. Does your character come back from the dead because the world needs him or her so badly? (Score five points for this question.)

86. Is your character middle-aged or older (40+ or the equivalent for his or her race)?

No

a. Is he or she a senior (65+ or the equivalent)?

87. Is your character overweight?

No (actually slightly yes, considering that he's based off me physically, but it's not reflected in the drawings)

88. Is your character ugly, both in-story and in the real world?

No

a. Is he or she disfigured in a way that is not cool or sexy?

89. Does your character have a physical handicap that interferes with his or her life? (If your character has a physical handicap that doesn't interfere in any way, add one point instead of subtracting two.)

No (I assume glasses do not count)

90. Does your character have a mental illness that interferes with his or her life (not counting amnesia, multiple personality disorder, nymphomania, or anything else cool)?

No

91. Does your character fail at something important?

Yes

a. Are there significant negative consequences?

Yes

b. Does he or she ever lose a fight against someone of the same or lesser skill level?

Yes

c. Does your character ever ignore a problem hoping it will go away (but it doesn't), or give up on something without trying?

Yes

92. Does your character need another character's help with something important?

Yes

a. Does your character get rescued by someone who isn't a love interest?

I think the issue is much simplier than this. Instead of having 100+ questions.The problem can be solved easily if treated as an issue of balance. A Mary Sue is simply an imbalance between a character and the plot (the plot would include other characters). Any trait can be sueised (so to speak) and every character is an Author Avatar (lato sensu).

A character can be imbalanced for it's virtues or it's importance

Imbalance by being too virtous

There isn't a limit to how powerful or skilled a character can be. But the character need have challenges, adversity or flaws adequate to the plot and proportional to it's setting.

Imbalance by importance

Having too much importance in relation to the plot. While it's expected that both Main Characters to be the main focus of a fictional work, unless justified by the plot, a character can't be liked or hated by almost all the characters, nor being the center of attention in-universe of all of them, all the time.

Litmut tests fail becuase they only consider the character on itself and they barely consider it's relation to the plot.

For instance Superman will be a Mary Sue in the Scooby-Doo unviverse (he rays through mosnters mask and the mystery is over in 10 seconds flat). But he will be the opposite in the Harry Potter universe (he is weak to magic)

edited 17th Sep '11 10:06:24 PM by FallenLegend

Make your hearth shine through the darkest night;let it transform hate into kindness, evil into justice, and loneliness into love.

Fallen Legend, you're absolutely right—no test can actually determine if your character works within the context of the story, and there is no substitute for good beta readers and honest self-evaluation.

Still, my test was created in response to that very problem. It attempts to rectify the problem by asking a lot of plot- and context-dependent questions and weighting them more heavily than the simple "does he/she have cool trait X?" questions.

I always dislike questions that begins with "Do you wish you had...", because it's usually "yes". But that applies to characters from the works of others, too. I sure as hell wish I had some of those cool outfits. I personally wouldn't add a point for that kind of small wish fulfillment, simply because it's common practice, even with fantastic authors, to add tidbits and trinkets of what they personally like to protagonists and protagonist-aligned characters. Also:

25. Does your character have a cool weapon?

a. Does your character use a sword or similar in a setting where guns are common?

b. Is the weapon out of place in that culture (such as a katana in medieval Europe)?

c. Is it claymore-sized or larger?

B could be a Sueish thing, but A and C are perfectly fine. Guns were in Europe from the 14th century onwards, but swords were still ideal personal combat weapons up until the invention of fast-firing rifles in the 19th century. Claymore-sized isn't necessarily that huge, and you'd be surprised how common swords of approximately that size were. In Europe, shifts in combat methods during the High Middle Ages gave swords a more relevant position in warfare. As such, two-handed, long-bladed swords became more common.

If one were to remove guns from the modern context, two-handed swords would still be the "ideal". They're not particularly heavy, but using two hands allows for more power, speed, stamina and control. The only reason to use a single-handed sword is to have a free off hand for a shield or another weapon.

EDIT: I just ran an Author Avatar character through it and got -5. While I see what you're doing with the de-Sueifiers, they might be a little intense. Although I'm not sure that you should change them, since stuff like "dies heroically" is pretty cool and common, but worth a whopping 3 Suepointe on its own.

Yeah, the problem that I found with this one (and others) was that a lot of the character's traits are justified in story, and I really wasn't sure to include some, since you did state, "However, skip any question that there's a good in-story reason for."

That statement kind of messed my scoring up, since there's a good in-story reason for pretty much everything, naturally.

Guns were in Europe from the 14th century onwards, but swords were still ideal personal combat weapons up until the invention of fast-firing rifles in the 19th century.

By that question I really meant using swords in a setting where guns have rendered them obsolete (since that basically guarantees that it's in the "cool but impractical" category), not like musketeers using guns. I should rephrase that.

Yeah, the problem that I found with this one (and others) was that a lot of the character's traits are justified in story, and I really wasn't sure to include some, since you did state, "However, skip any question that there's a good in-story reason for."

I was trying to avoid penalizing characters for being treated ways that are actually realistic within the context of the story. For instance, if the character is a princess, she's already racked up points for that, and I don't want to keep penalizing her for all the special treatment you'd expect a princess to receive (avoiding punishment, being allowed to do things others can't, etc).

But you're definitely right that the caveat can be interpreted as a universal pass: "Everyone likes her because she's really likeable!" How would you handle this problem?

I'm pretty sure we've all got a pretty good idea of when swords started to become less popular and that there was quite an overlap of swords and guns - especially given that the earlier guns were slow to load and only one or two shots, compared with swords that could be used at all times. We all pretty much know when a sword is out of place for the setting.

Community

Tropes HQ

TVTropes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org. Privacy Policy